Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)

So, the motion to stay is granted, pending appeal. That means marriages won’t begin on Wednesday or anytime soon.

The appeal has been expedited. Arguments will be held in early December. One other thing: This order states that Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2 does not apply, meaning no extensions. Under Rule 31-2.2 (a), “If good cause is shown, the clerk or a designated deputy may grant an oral request for a single extension of time of no more than 14 days to file an opening, answering or reply brief. Such extensions may be applied for and granted or denied by telephone.” No one gets the 14 days extension. Sounds like the judges want this case to move ahead without delay.

And, the appellants, meaning the pro-Prop. 8 side, have to explain why they have standing. That remains a major issue for them moving forward. For more on this issue, see Prof. David Cruz’s post: Do the Prop. 8 proponents have Standing to Appeal?